UMF v UMG: Guardianship of Infants Act & Locus Standi of Non-Parents in Custody Dispute

UMF (the Plaintiff), the grand-aunt of H, appealed against the District Judge's decision to dismiss her application for custody and care and control of H and to order that H be returned to his parents, UMG (the Mother) and UMH (the Father). The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Plaintiff lacked locus standi under Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act to apply for custody as she was neither a parent nor a court-appointed guardian. The court also considered the welfare of the child and the court's wardship jurisdiction, ultimately concluding that it was in H's best interest to be returned to his parents.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding custody of a child. The court held that the grand-aunt lacked locus standi under the Guardianship of Infants Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UMFAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
UMGRespondentIndividualCustody GrantedWon
UMHRespondentIndividualCustody GrantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Debbie OngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mohamed Hashim bin Abdul RasheedA Mohamed Hashim

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiff is the grand-aunt of H.
  2. The First and Second Respondents are H’s parents.
  3. The Plaintiff had been caring for H since he was seven days old.
  4. The Father signed a Letter of Guardianship drafted by the Plaintiff.
  5. The Mother did not sign the Letter of Guardianship.
  6. The Parents were not deemed unfit parents.
  7. The Parents wanted H back but were not given a chance.

5. Formal Citations

  1. UMF v UMG and another, HCF/District Court Appeal No 44 of 2018, [2018] SGHCF 20

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parents married in Singapore
H was born
Father handed H over to the Plaintiff
Father signed a Letter of Guardianship
Mother demanded the return of H at the Plaintiff’s residence
Father requested that the Plaintiff return H to him, but she refused
H was handed over to the Mother
Plaintiff filed her application for custody and care and control of H
Mother returned H to the Plaintiff’s care
Order that H was to be returned to the Parents by this date was stayed pending the determination of this appeal
Hearing date
Judgment issued
Plaintiff shall have access to H until this date
Plaintiff shall have access to H from this date
Plaintiff shall have access to H until this date
Plaintiff shall have access to H from this date
Plaintiff shall have access to H until this date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Locus Standi
    • Outcome: The court held that the grand-aunt lacked locus standi to apply for custody under Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2004] 4 SLR(R) 784
      • [1996] 3 SLR(R) 83
      • [1999] 2 SLR(R) 392
  2. Guardianship
    • Outcome: The court determined the application of guardianship law to parents and non-parents.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Wardship
    • Outcome: The court considered whether to exercise its wardship jurisdiction to place H in the Plaintiff’s care, but determined it was not an appropriate case.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Custody
  2. Care and Control

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Child Custody
  • Family Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
CZ v DA and anotherHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 784SingaporeCited for the principle that a grandmother, without more, is not entitled to apply for an order for access to her grandchild.
Lim Kok Chye Ivan and another v Lim Chin Huat Francis and anotherHigh CourtYes[1996] 3 SLR(R) 83SingaporeCited for the proposition that Section 5, and by extension GIA as a whole, do not inform of the nature or form of the application to be made under it.
Lim Chin Huat Francis and another v Lim Kok Chye Ivan and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 392SingaporeCited for the definition of 'guardian' as a person who has charge of or control over a child at the material time.
UDA v UDB and anotherHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 1433SingaporeCited for the principle that while the High Court has jurisdiction to appoint and control guardians of infants under s 17(1)(d) of the SCJA, the jurisdiction must be appropriately invoked through an enabling provision or other law.
The Duke of Beaufort v BertyCourt of ChanceryYes[1721] 1 P Wms 703EnglandCited for the principle that guardians appointed by will are trustees, on whose misbehaviour, or giving occasion of suspicion, the Court of Chancery would interpose.
SLWE and others v CTT and anotherCourt of First Instance of the Hong Kong High CourtYes[2010] HKCFI 713Hong KongCited for the principle that the power to remove a guardian should only be exercised when the appointment is no longer suitable like when due to change of circumstances, the guardian becomes no longer fit and suitable to act as guardian for the minor in question.
F v F (1)High CourtYes[1902] 1 Ch 688EnglandCited as an example where the power to remove a guardian was exercised.
Re H (A Minor) (Custody: Interim Care and Control)English Court of AppealYes[1991] 2 FLR 109EnglandCited for the principle that there is a strong supposition that, other things being equal, it is in the interests of the child that it shall remain with its natural parents.
Re W (A Minor) (Residence Order)English Court of AppealYes[1993] 2 FLR 625EnglandEndorsed the statement in Re H (A Minor) (Custody: Interim Care and Control) that it is in the interests of the child that it shall remain with its natural parents.
Re D (Care: Natural Parent Presumption)English Court of AppealYes[1999] 1 FLR 134EnglandCited for the principle that the correct approach was to first consider the father as a potential carer for the child, and whether there were good grounds to reject the supposition in his favour.
Re C (an infant)Court of AppealYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 502SingaporeCited for the principle that, prima facie, a surviving parent should have the right to custody of his child.
TDT v TDS and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 145SingaporeCited for the principle that the relationship between a biological parent and a child is special, in that it is a relationship created naturally without legal process.
In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre and others intervening)House of LordsYes[2016] AC 606EnglandCited for the principle that the real question was whether the child required protection.
Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che ChyeCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 430SingaporeCited for the principle that when a child becomes a ward of the court, the court takes over ultimate responsibility for the child and in effect becomes the child’s parent.
In Re E (SA) (A Minor) (Wardship: Court’s Duty)House of LordsYes[1984] 1 WLR 156EnglandCited for the principle that when a child becomes a ward of the court, the court takes over ultimate responsibility for the child and in effect becomes the child’s parent.
In re S (Infants)Chancery DivisionYes[1967] 1 WLR 396EnglandCited for the principle that no important step in the child’s life can be taken without the court’s consent.
In re W (An Infant)English Court of AppealYes[1964] 1 Ch 202EnglandCited for the principle that in wardship cases the court retains the custody of the infant and only makes such orders in relation to that custody as may amount to a delegation of certain parts of its duties.
CLP v CSN (formerly known as HTY or HTYZ) and anotherCourt of Appeal of the Hong Kong High CourtYes[2016] HKCA 515Hong KongCited for the principle that the Court as the protector of the child has the power to make the child a ward of Court and confer the necessary rights of custody and care of the child on the child’s grandmother who has been looking after the child.
Re D (a minor) (wardship: sterilisation)High CourtYes[1976] 1 All ER 326EnglandCited as an example of a case where anyone with a genuine interest may apply to invoke the court’s wardship jurisdiction.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014)
Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Family Justice Act 2014 (Act 27 of 2014)Singapore
Family Justice Act 2014 (Act 27 of 2014)Singapore
Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Guardianship
  • Locus Standi
  • Wardship
  • Parental Responsibility
  • Welfare of the Child
  • Letter of Guardianship

15.2 Keywords

  • Guardianship
  • Custody
  • Family Law
  • Singapore
  • Infant
  • Child
  • Locus Standi
  • Wardship

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law95
Guardianship of Infants Act90
Children's Welfare80
Child Custody70
Locus Standi60
Wardship50
Child Support40
Trusts and Estates10
Succession Law5

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Guardianship
  • Civil Procedure